https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278526 Singapore was a reciprocating territory when the decree was passed, so the foreign decree fell within Section 44-A CPC. However, execution in India still depended on the decree satisfying Section 13 and on the defendant being subject to the foreign court's jurisdiction. The respondent was not shown to have been resident in Singapore, to have personally appeared, or to have otherwise submitted to that forum, and the ex parte decree was passed without evidence or trial, so it was not on the merits. Execution was therefore correctly refused because the jurisdictional and merits requirements for enforcing a foreign decree were not met. en-us Thu, 20 Apr 1972 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 11 Feb 2019 10:13:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278526 Singapore was a reciprocating territory when the decree was passed, so the foreign decree fell within Section 44-A CPC. However, execution in India still depended on the decree satisfying Section 13 and on the defendant being subject to the foreign court's jurisdiction. The respondent was not shown to have been resident in Singapore, to have personally appeared, or to have otherwise submitted to that forum, and the ex parte decree was passed without evidence or trial, so it was not on the merits. Execution was therefore correctly refused because the jurisdictional and merits requirements for enforcing a foreign decree were not met. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 20 Apr 1972 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278526